9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, after the withdrawal of a previous petition without liberty to file a fresh petition. 2. Applicability of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Companies Act. 3. Entitlement of the petitioner to relief under section 397 after not pressing a winding-up petition under section 433. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Petition The petitioner filed the current petition under sections 397, 398, and 402(c) of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging acts of mismanagement and oppression by respondents. The petitioner previously filed C.P. No. 68 of 1969 on similar grounds, which was withdrawn with the court's leave but without liberty to file a fresh petition. The respondents contended that the dismissal of the previous petition bars the current petition. The court held that the petitioner is precluded from instituting a fresh petition on the same allegations due to the lack of express leave to refile. However, the petitioner is entitled to an enquiry into acts of mismanagement and oppression occurring after the dismissal of the previous petition. Issue 2: Applicability of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure The court examined whether Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which precludes the institution of a fresh suit on the same cause of action after withdrawal without liberty, applies to proceedings under the Companies Act. Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, states that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to all proceedings under the Companies Act as far as applicable. The court concluded that requiring a petitioner to obtain leave to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action is reasonable and consistent with the Companies Act. Therefore, the petitioner, having withdrawn the previous petition without such leave, is barred from raising the same allegations again. Issue 3: Entitlement to Relief under Section 397 after Not Pressing a Winding-Up Petition The petitioner had also filed C.P. No. 49 of 1970 under section 433(e) and (f) for winding up the company, which was later dismissed as not pressed. The respondents argued that this dismissal precludes the petitioner from seeking relief under section 397, as it implies no grounds for winding up exist. The court rejected this argument, stating that the reliefs under sections 397 and 433 are distinct and separate. The fact that a winding-up petition was not pressed does not bar the petitioner from prosecuting the current petition under section 397. Conclusion: The court upheld the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on allegations from the previously withdrawn petition but allowed the petitioner to proceed with an enquiry into new allegations of mismanagement and oppression occurring after the dismissal of C.P. No. 68 of 1969. The petition was adjourned for further enquiry into these new allegations.
|
